R v Crook - [2017] QCA 277

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Crook [2017] QCA 277

PARTIES:

R
v
CROOK, Luke Thomas
aka BAUER, Luke
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 365 of 2016
SC No 86 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns – Date of Sentence: 26 November 2016 (Henry J)

DELIVERED ON:

13 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 August 2017

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Boddice J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant was convicted, on his own plea of guilty, of trafficking dangerous drugs and possessing dangerous drugs – where the applicant was sentenced to six years imprisonment on the trafficking count, with terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently for the possession counts – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the grounds it is manifestly excessive – where the applicant’s conviction was dependent on his cooperation with police – where the basis of the appeal was that the sentence was excessive in light of the applicant’s age and insubstantial criminal history – where the learned sentencing judge considered a number of mitigating factors but also that the offending was serious and prolonged – whether the sentence reflected the relevant mitigating factors and sentences in comparable cases – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited
R v Boyd[2013] QCA 335, distinguished
R v Briggs [2012] QCA 291, distinguished
R v JZ [2017] QCA 65, distinguished
R v Miller[2013] QCA 346, distinguished
R v Munoz[2012] QCA 269, distinguished
R v Neilson[2014] QCA 221, distinguished
R v Prendergast[2012] QCA 164, distinguished
R v Tout [2012] QCA 296, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC for the applicant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Couper Geyson for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: I agree with the reasons of Morrison JA and with the order his Honour proposes.
MORRISON JA: While Mr Crook was in the Cairns Watchhouse on 31 July 2015, he was joined by a covert police officer (X). They began conversing about drug-related matters, particularly in relation to prices and drug supplies in the Cairns area. After they were released, Mr Crook entered into a number of transactions with X in which he supplied various quantities of methylamphetamine. This continued for several months. Eventually police searched his house and he agreed to be interviewed.
As a consequence he was charged with:
(a)count 1: trafficking in methylamphetamine, cocaine and MDMA,[1] between 1 March 2013 and 25 December 2015;
(b)count 2: unlawful possession of a dangerous drug, methylamphetamine; and
(c)count 3: unlawful possession of a dangerous drug, Trenbolone.
[1]3-4, Methylenedioxymethamphetamine.
Mr Crook pleaded…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Crook

Details

AGLC: R v Crook [2017] QCA 277
Case: [2017] QCA 277
Decision Date: 13 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Crook involved the applicant appealing against his sentence for trafficking and possessing dangerous drugs. The applicant had pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to six years imprisonment for the trafficking charge, with concurrent terms for the possession charges. The applicant sought leave to appeal his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive, particularly considering his age and limited criminal history. His cooperation with law enforcement was a significant factor in his conviction.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, given the mitigating factors presented. The applicant argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect his age and minimal prior criminal record. The court was required to assess whether the sentence appropriately balanced the seriousness of the offences with the mitigating factors and compared it with sentences in similar cases. The applicant's cooperation with the police, which led to his conviction, was a crucial mitigating factor.

In considering the appeal, the court examined the sentencing principles and the weight given to mitigating factors by the sentencing judge. The court noted that while the applicant's age and limited criminal history were indeed mitigating factors, they did not outweigh the seriousness and duration of the offending. The court also compared the sentence with those in similar cases and found that the sentence was within the range typically imposed for such offences. The court concluded that the sentence did not represent an error of principle or a manifestly excessive punishment. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Crook [2017] QCA 277
PARTIES:	R v CROOK, Luke Thomas aka BAUER, Luke (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 365 of 2016 SC No 86 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns – Date of Sentence: 26 November 2016 (Henry J)
DELIVERED ON:	13 November 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 August 2017
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Boddice J
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant was convicted, on his own plea of guilty, of trafficking dangerous drugs and possessing dangerous drugs – where the applicant was sentenced to six years imprisonment on the trafficking count, with terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently for the possession counts – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the grounds it is manifestly excessive – where the applicant’s conviction was dependent on his cooperation with police – where the basis of the appeal was that the sentence was excessive in light of the applicant’s age and insubstantial criminal history – where the learned sentencing judge considered a number of mitigating factors but also that the offending was serious and prolonged – whether the sentence reflected the relevant mitigating factors and sentences in comparable cases – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited R v Boyd[2013] QCA 335, distinguished R v Briggs [2012] QCA 291, distinguished R v JZ [2017] QCA 65, distinguished R v Miller[2013] QCA 346, distinguished R v Munoz[2012] QCA 269, distinguished R v Neilson[2014] QCA 221, distinguished R v Prendergast[2012] QCA 164, distinguished R v Tout [2012] QCA 296, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Copley QC for the applicant D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Couper Geyson for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent